Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/4/1983 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California April 4, 1983 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Hart at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioners none STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Norvin Lanz, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Bert K. Yamasaki, Director of Planning & Development Services; Bernie Dennis,. Traffic Engineer; and Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 21, 1983 Commissioner Coontz asked fora correction to the minutes on page 10 at the bottom of the page, where the vote count was omitted. The vote was unanimous. Commissioner Mickelson commented on a statement supposedly made by him in the next to the last paragraph: "...what Mr. Jacobs tells his tenants is no business of the Commission or the public.", saying that if he spoke that harshly, he did not mean to. The question which was asked was whether Mr. Jacobs had given written notice to his tenants and he felt that this was not the particular issue before the Commission and, therefore, should not be considered by them, or words to that effect. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson to approve the minutes of March 21, 1983, as corrected. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: ZONE CHANGE 993 - CITY OF ORANGE A proposal to rezone property from the C-2 (.General Business) District to the MH (Mobile Home) District on property located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue 208.5± feet east of the center- line of Berkeley Street (300 West Lincoln Avenue, Mobile Ritz Mobile Home Park). (Note: This project is exempt from Environmental Review.) Chairman Hart explained that inasmuch as this application had been before the Commission before and a presentation given and Commission Vasquez, who was absent at that meeting, had listened to the taped transcripts of that hearing, it was the consensus of the Commission that no presentation was needed. Mr. Murphy pointed out that two letters had been received by Staff in this matter, both letters coming from residents of the mobile home park. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Planning Commission h1inutes April 4,.1983 Page Two 0 Mary Arceola, 300 West Lincoln Avenue, Orange, addressed the Commission, explaining that she has been a resident of the Mobile Ritz Mobile Home Park for the past two years. She was a former resident of Lamplighter Mobile Home Park before it was closed down and lost several thousand d-liars when she was forced to move. She said that she was neither in favor of or opposed to the zone change, she only wished to keep the park a mobile home park. Frank G. Jacobs, 2813 N. Annapolis St., Santa Ana, addressed the Commission in opposition to this zone change. He explained that he is the son of Dan Jacobs, the owner of the mobile home park, and that he is the one who stands to lose the most if there is a zone change to mobile home zoning. He handed out a packet of informational material to the Commission members, including a three page letter stating his views in this regard. Included in the packet was a copy of a letter dated March 22, 1983 addressed to the residents of the Mobile Ritz Mobile Home Park, indicating when meetings would be held at the park to discuss this proposed zone change and inviting the residents to these meetings. In his letter, Mr. Jacobs explained the mobile home park was built in 1958, which makes it 25 years old now and it has become obsolete, being unable to accommodate the newer and larger mobile homes which are being sold now. He pointed out that his father is dedicated to the upkeep and upgrading of this park within the limits of economic good sense and this has kept it a desirable place to live, despite having been bypassed in the industry. However, Mr. Jacobs does not share that same dedication to the park and when the time comes that his parents are no longer able or willing to mange the park, he will be faced with three alternatives: 1. Develop the land 2. Sell the park, or 3. Continue the park as an absentee owner, in the face of tremendous maintenance, repair, re- placement and management expenditures. He pointed out in his letter that the City, by downzoning this. property, proposes to take away the first alternative, greatly reduce the value with the second alternative and force him to ~ accept either the third alternative or accept a greatly reduced sales proceeds. He felt that the City was proposing to take away something of value from his family, without any suggestion of just compensation. Mr. Jacobs' letter also explained that many of their tenants do not support this action and have voiced their opposition, which letters are included in the packet handed out to the Commission members. Chairman Hart explained that by receiving this packet of informa- tion at such a late date, it would be difficult for the Commission to use this information on which to base their decision. Commissioner Coontz agreed with this statement, further explaining how difficult it is to make a decision when a packet is handed to them at such a late date. Mr. Jacobs hoped that the Commissioners would take the time to read through his packet and reflect on the information therein. The question was asked as to how many residents of the mobile home park had signed the statement which was given to the Commissioners opposing this zone change and the answer was 22. There are 78 sites in the '~ park. Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 1983 Page Three A short period of time was given to the Commissioners by Chairman Hart to peruse the packet regarding this zone change and ref]ect on the information therein. Dan Jacobs, 300 West Lincoln Avenue, Orange, the owner of the Mobile Ritz Mobile Home Park, addressed the Commission, showing them an aerial view map of the area and pointing out all of the areas which are commercially zoned surrounding the park. He explained that they are surrounding almost totally by commercially zoned property. He apologized for the lateness of their letter and explained the difficulties they had encountered in putting together their information. Commissioner Coontz observed that she had had phone calls from several people who would not speak in opposition to this zone change because they were afraid. She pointed out that at the last hearing on this matter she felt that the people were dared to speak in opposition to this zone change. She felt an intimidation there on the part of the owner. Mr. Jacobs totally disagreed with this statement, pointing out that he had offered to leave the council chambers in order that people might feel free to speak however they -might wish to speak. Commissioner Coontz observed that this is an older mobile home park and many of the people who live there are elderly and afraid to speak because they are afraid their rent will be increased if they do. She said that she had to express her con- cerns in this regard because she felt that someone must stand up for them. Commissioner Vasquez agreed with Commissioner Coontz that this kind of atmosphere had prevailed at the last hearing. Vickie Talley, 17845 Skypark Circle, Ste. J, Irvine, representing the Mobile Home Park Owners of Orange County, addressed the Commission in opposition to this zone change. She explained that she had not been present at the last hearing, nor had she listened to the taped transcripts from that hearing and, therefore, did not know what had occurred during that hearing. However, she was here at this time to look at the planning process and find the best way to make that planning process come about. She felt that the duty of the Commissioners was to plan for the highest and best use of the land in the County. She thought that Mr. Jacobs had made quite an effort to have contact with the residents of his mobile home park. She asked if the letters which had been received were in favor of or in opposition to the proposed zone change. It was explained to her that one letter had been in opposition and the other was neither, but expressed the desire for mobile home owners' rights to be considered, since they are not transitory people. The writer of that letter, Mrs . Arceol a, had already addressed the Commission this evening. Ms. Talley pointed out that there has been plenty of advertisement about this hearing and people have the right to come here and make their views known. She explained that she wished to speak to good planning. She then went on to observe that this property had been annexed in 1963 and, at that time, it was a mobile home park. At that time the park owners were in favor of the annexation, knowing that they would be zoned Commercial. Other property owners- came in asking fora zone change in that area, but it was kept zoned Commercial. It is very clear to her that it is meant to be Commercial. Ms. Talley said that she looks at a piece of property such as this as a.resource. This is an older park and will probably not be a mobile home park forever. Therefore, it is a resource to the .City of Orange if it is used well. She could see the property used as a senior citizens' center, which would be very useful and helpful. Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 1983 Page Four She brought out that the City Council's direction was that the General Plan Land Use Element should be reviewed for consistency and appropriateness of use and she felt that clearly here is a use that is not at all appropriate for the area surrounding it. Ms. Talley commended Commissioner Coontz and the rest of the Commission for recommending an ordinance at the last meeting which would cover the dislocation of residents from mobile home parks when there would be a change of use. She also pointed out that it had been specifically stated that mobile home zoning did not mean that it was a permanent protection and solution for the mobile home residents, She said that clearly Mr. Jacobs had impressed her that he has made every effort to keep communications open with his residents. He plans to keep maintaing a well run park and keeping his residents happy. Regarding the Staff's recommendations in the Staff Report, she concurred with Recommendation #1, to deny the zone change without prejudice. Commissioner Coontz expressed concern about the continual references to the duties of the Commissioners, explaining that their major concern most of the time is with the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Orange. She pointed out that there would not be any reason to be concerned with land use if they were not concerned with people, which is a greater resource than land. Ms. Talley said that her concern is whether the Commissioners deal with a problem, not as a popularity vote, but as to the highest and best use. She agreed with Commissioner Coontz that the Commission should be concerned with the entire community. There being no one else to speak for or against this zone change, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Master pointed out that there is always a warning in all of these hearings that this zoning is not permanent. He pointed out that no zoning is permanent and felt concern that this is stressed only in the mobile home zone change cases. He did not understand why such emphasis is put on this particular situation. Commissioner Coontz pointed out that though this seems like an emotional reaction at this time, the. Council and the Commission have been studying this issue for a long time to come up with the best solution for all concerned. Even though the park owner feels that the greatest impact from the zone change would be the impact upon him as an individual, she felt that the greatest impact would be the aggregate - that is the impact not to just one individual, but to many individuals who cannot or will not speak for themselves, and perhaps do not know how. She felt that,. as a Planning Commissioner, it was her duty to take care of not only the land area, but the people area, believing in. free enterprise and the rights of the individual property owner. However, the people have rights also. Commissioner Mickelson asked Mr. Minshew about the new law which was effective January 1,-1983, which defines change of use, wondering if that change of use definition was different than what was there previously. The reason he asked this question was because the last line states: "change of use includes, but is not limited to a change of the park, or a portion thereof, to a condominium or co-operative planned unit development, or any form of ownership wherein spaces are to be sold," Mr. Minshew thought that this was the same. Commissioner Mickelson said that the motion which was passed on to the Council in regard to Park Royale stated that even closure of a park without a reuse constitutes change of use and, therefore, requires a Tenant Relocation Plan. Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 1983 Page Five U Commissioner Coontz stated that there was one resolution that the Council approved which included many policy suggestions. So the motion was to ask the Council to study those two particular ideas which she had picked out for ordinances. However, that does not say that they will do this. Moved by Commissioner Mickelson,. to recommend to the City Council prejudice and implement the City use, closure or reversion to acre Tenant Dislocation Impact Report Assistance Plan. seconded by Commissioner Vasquez denial of Zone Change 993 without Council policy that a change of 'age requires preparation of a and, possibly, a Tenant Relocation Commissioner Mickelson explained that he found nothing new and different in tonight's hearing that would change his opinion. In reading over Mr. Jacobs' letter, he had made an attempt to remain objective.. However, he pointed out that he would have the opportunity to seek a zone change at any time. ~ Commissioner Vasquez commented that in listening to the tape of the previous meeting .and in listening to tonight's testimony, he con- curred with some of Commissioner Mickelson's reasons for his motion. However, he wanted to say that he considered it quite unfortunate that with the scenario which this item has generated, either false or true - that is the fear of some of the tenants to come here and speak before the Commission could put them in jeopardy, he thought that the action taken at the last meeting - the recommendation of an ordinance to .the Council, was a very strong step in the right direction to create a more reasonable assurance for those people who live in that park. He wished to state that his vote was not predi- cated on economic factors, because he does not consider that relevant to his decision and to good, sound planning. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Mickelson, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners Coontz, Master ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED PRE-ZONE CHANGE 997 - CITY OF ORANGE: A proposal to rezone property from County E-4-1 (Small Estates) District to City R-1-40 (Single-Family Residential - minimum lot size 40,000 square feet) District on land located on the east side of Kennymead Street between Santiago Canyon Road and Randall Street. (Note: This project is exempt from Environmental Review.) Norvin Lanz presented this app lication to the Commission, stating that the properties contain 22,8 acres of land and are located on the east side of Kennymead Street between Santiago Canyon Road and Randall Street. The properties are zoned by the County of Orange as E-4-1 or "Small Estates" District, minimum lot size - 1 acre. A71 existing lots conform to that minimum lot size. Mr. Lanz explained that the owners of five parcels sought to connect to City sewers and the remaining parcel owners were polled to deter- mine their interest in annexing. Only one owner in this annexation area expressed opposition. It was pointed out that Santiago Canyon Road is a primary arterial with a planned width of 100 feet and Kennymead Street is a local street with a width of 55 feet. The Land Use Element of the General Plan Study (1973) designates the properties for 1 acre minimum Low-Density Residential. The City Code 17.06.120 permits the City to prezone properties prior to annexation. Staff has reviewed the project area and has no specific concerns. Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 1983 Page Six f It is recommended that Zone Change 997 be recommended to the City Council for approval for the reason that R-1-40 zoning allows for the lowest density single-family residential district which is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Richard Seibert, 1388 Kennymead, addressed the Commission, stating that he is not opposed to the prezone change, but had questions in this regard. He was told that R-1-40 was the largest designation the City has and wondered if this was true. He was told that this was so. He pointed out that this area is currently zoned for 1 acre parcels and wondered if this is annexed to the City of Orange, how do the people living across from this area see that it is kept in 1-acre estates. Chairman Hart explained that one acre amounts to 43,000 sq, ft. and this will be zoned 40,000 sq. ft. Mr. Murphy also explained that in Orange Park Acres there is a policy that requires one acre parcels. Mr. Seibert asked if someone wanted to subdivide and put two units on one acre, would they have to come to the Commission on an in- dividual basis? He was told that they would. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mickelson asked why the other three parcels on Santiago Canyon Road were not included in this prezone change and Mr. Murphy responded that the entire area was surveyed and the annexation was prepared based on the response from the residents in that area. There is still some opposition in that area. ~J Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez to recommend approval of Pre-Zone Change 997, for the reasons as stated in the Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED IN RE: MISCELLANEOUS MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS - CITY OF ORANGE: Information and discussion of JEF Engineering report on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. v Bernie Dennis gave a brief overview as to why the Master Plan is being presented tonight, stating that there were a number of events and circumstances that led to the study which is being reviewed tonight, first being the Master Plans of Streets and Highways originally adopted in the early 60's in concert with other similar adoptions by other cities in the County of Orange. He explained that there have been some significant changes in the plan, but a comprehensive analysis of the original plan has not been undertaken since the original adoption. A second key event leading to the study was a proposed street widening project presented to the City Council approximately two years ago. This proposal led to some questions from residents and the Council as to what direction the City was heading, specifically with regard to Walnut and Cambridge. He explained that the SOS (Save Our Streets) Committee and a number of other concerned residents presented a proposal to the Council asking for the removal of Walnut and Cambridge from the Master Plan to be placed on the November 1982 ballot as an initiative. Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 1983 Page Seven He explained that consideration of this proposal by Council was continued to the meeting of May 11th, at which time they took two actions, first directing the Staff to start proceedings necessary to remove Cambridge from the Master Plan of Arterial Highways and, secondly, dictating that Staff retain a transportation engineering consultant to evaluate the Master Plan of Arterial Highways in its entirety. .Council gave two directions to the Staff and the consultant: 1. That extraordinary notification procedures be employed to advise all residents of the city of the study. 2. That extensive public input be solicited as part of the study and documented in the project report. Mr. Dennis explained that one other criteria in this report was that it was not to be necessarily lengthy, but concise and easy to understand. He pointed out that they would welcome any input or comments made by .the Commission, to go into the report to the City Council. Joe Faust, the transportation engineering consultant, gave an overview of the study. At this paint, Commissioner Coontz asked what relationship this has to the core study which was done of the downtown area and Mr. Faust explained that this is different and has a different focus. This study was initiated specifically to look at Cambridge and Walnut Streets. The Council felt that if anything was to be done to the Master Plan then the entire Master Plan should be studied for adequacy. They used all available information and utilized the original travel models for projection of future growth. Mr. Faust explained that a notice and questionnaire was sent out to the citizens of Orange. This gave them information regarding where people went to work, what streets were most frequently traveled, etc. Lt was. also an attitudinal survey. They did not set it up to be tabulated by a computer. They received 5,000 replies back, which is a very good response. This was computerized and will be on file for research and direction. Mr. Faust said that some of the community had a misconception of the funding in these areas. They felt that if money was not used for one project it could be transferred to another. This is not true, as the County allocates funds for a specific project and money is not transferable. He explained that they used original travel models to make travel projections. Commissioner Vasquez pointed out statements in the report with regard to residents of Cambridge and Walnut who were concerned about monies allocated specifically for those streets to be shifted to nearby streets and Mr. Faust explained that he did not think these statements came from residents, but from members of Staff. He said that this question had been asked of him at a public meeting. Commissioner Master referred to page 10 of the report, reading the first sentence to put his question into perspective, and asked if Mr. Faust had done a sensitivety analysis of the low end density and the high end density of the General Plan. Mr. Faust replied the original models of which he had spoken previously, had been up- dated in 1981. He was aware of the possibility of highrise develop- ~^ ments along Tustin Avenue and some of it was included in the model. He said that the land use was based on the most information that was available in 1981. The Tustin-Meats property was not included at that time, which property seemed to be the concern of Commissioner Plaster. Planning Commission Minutes Apri 1 4, 1983 Page Eight Gary Johnson addressed the question as to whether we will lose funds for the Glassell project if it did not proceed, explaining how the city goes about choosing the most worthwhile projects to submit each year for the money that is available from the County. If these projects are not worthy then they do lose funds. He explained that they have been submitting projects to help offset their budget, as all other cities do. Commissioner Coontz pointed out that the original concerns of the citizens dealt with the widening of Glassell and nowhere in this study do they address Glassell, She wondered why this has not been addressed, feeling that this needs to be answered since that question was what started all of this. The downtown area has not been addressed at all here. Mr. Faust felt that what precipated this study was a petition to delete Cambridge and Walnut from the Master Plan, In the four community meetings which were held, he recalled very little reference to Glassell, other than that everyone pointed out that this was what got us to studying Cambridge and Walnut. In the survey, about 50/50 people thought Glassell should be widened. Mr. Faust said that the study has pointed out the core area growth as only being at 1%. Prediction is 9% growth, while the north-south corridor is at 60% growth. Commissioner Mickelson asked if we were to assume that the possibility exists that there would be a significant change of land use on Tustin could that be factored into the regional model as we consider that General Plan change at a later date? Mr. Faust answered that this could b.e done. He then referred to the map before the Commissioners stating that they have found that the growth of traffic in the area will be heavil;~ oriented towards the freeways. He gave figures of what would be traveling on the various freeways surrounding the city. One of the conclusions of the analysis is that if the freeways could do their job entirely then there would be considerable capacity arterially available. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The Garden Grove Freeway (22) is about the only one which will hold its own. All the rest will show substantial spil]~over to the arterials, even with the improvements projected for them. One of these arterials is Tustin Avenue. He pointed out that Anaheim and Yorba Linda have al- ready recognized the spillover problem from the freeway and have made Tustin Avenue a major arterial. The same recommendation is being made in this study. Mr. Faust stated that one of the concerns raised by the citizens was that they dial not want to see through traffic on Cambridge. This will occur on Tustin, but not on Cambridge. Cambridge can, therefore, be downgraded to a commuter class, which. would allow it to remain a two- lane street. He felt that it should still remain on the Master Plan, but as a commuter street. Tustin's upgrade would allow a downgrade of Cambridge. 16% of the community indicated that they use Cambridge. Findings of the study indicate that there is a substantial demand for east-west travel as well, and Walnut will be needed to support growth in the future in both the east and west portions of the city. The study indicated that about 10% of the community uses Walnut and 7% of the freeway traffic uses Walnut and the Orangewood freeway exchange. One of his suggestions is that one way to help reduce traffic and share the load between Collins and Walnut is to make the connection between Walnut and Collins. Projection shows that volume on Walnut will continue to grow. In the future, there will be a need to improve Walnut to a four-lane street. L'_ Planning Commissioner Minutes Apri 1 4, 1983 Page Nine L~J Mr. Faust explained that a separate study was done on the Fashion Square-Town & Country-Main Street area. The study was done between the cities of Orange and Santa Ana. A recommencation was made to construct an overpass on Lawson Way. Other recommendations included improvements to the Grand/Glassell interchange to provide a loop onramp for northbound to westbound traffic and a slip ramp off of La Veta to the northbound 57 Freeway. There was also a recommenda- tion that Main Street should be widened and upgraded to a major status and become a modified major from La Veta north to Chapman Avenue. He then went over the results of the attitudinal survey, pointing out that the questionnaire asked what types of improvements did the community want to see. About half of the people indicated that the major streets to some extent were a problem. They avoided Tustin and Chapman and indicated that these streets needed to be improved. Various types of traffic diversions were presented at the public meetings which were held and there was little or no support for this. About 1/3 of the people wanted to see things remain the way they are. Half of the people would like to see street improvements and widening '~ of some streets. Commissioner Nickelson asked if there were names and addresses with the surveys which came back and Mr. Faust replied in the affirmative, saying that they broke the statistics down by areas. Commissioner Nickelson asked if there was notable response by one geographical area over another and Mr. Faust replied that there was not. He pointed out that there was a good distribution citywide. He was disappointed with regard to Walnut that he did not get much response from that area, .Commissioner Nickelson then asked questions with regard to Item #6 in the report, wondering if that in any way would have an effect on the closure of the Parker/Santiago area. Mr. Faust answered that it would definitely have an effect. This is an improvement of the 17th. Street, Santa Ana interchange and he explained how it will be modified to accomp]ish a right hand loop. Commissioner Nickelson explained that he has been against the closing of streets because the problem is then diverted somewhere else and he was afraid, in this particular case, that this is what was done here. Mr. Faust explained just exactly how the traffic will be diverted in this area after the modification has been made. Commissioner Hart asked if he could determine when the street was blocked off where the traffic went. Mr. Faust explained that Main Street was improved and it flows better than it did before. It has picked up about half of the traffic which was diverted. The rest of the traffic uses the freeway and Grand - Glassell. Commissioner Vasquez pointed out that you can no longer get on the freeway at Main Street in that area - you .must go toward Orange in order to get on the freeway. Commissioner Coontz referred to the TSIP improvement plan and asked to what extent had this been approved by the City of Orange. Mr. Faust dial not think that this has been approved. Commissioner Coontz understood that there were some Council members who were not happy about .this plan. Chairman Hart said that he and Commissioner Nickelson had been appointed to this committee and had never been invited to a meeting. Commissioner Coontz asked if the survey had geared to only the residents of Orange and was told that it had also been sent to the businesses. She asked for the percentage of residents and what type of residents had replied and was told that 7% of the reponses had been from businesses and 92% were from residents. Commissioner Coontz felt as though they are looking at this as a final plan and perhaps if there is no power in the City of Orange that might be exactly the way it will be. She wondered how they could affect this and was told by Mr. Faust that he is looking for input from the Commission, explaining that the study is not finished yet Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 1983 Page Ten Mr, Dennis explained that TSIP is an agreement which was entered into by the City of Santa Ana and the City of Orange. It included three things 1. It called for identification of those deficiencies in the total transportation system. 2. It called for the estimation of 1% of the gross building costs. This was to be done between the two cities. He explained that the city of Orange has approved this concept. 3. Prior to the use of this money, the two cities would have to agree. Therefore, each city can plan any number of projects, but unless they collectively recognize the transportation issue as a community issue and agree collectively to resolve these problems, neither city will .give up their share of the money. Mr. Faust explained that essentially the developments, as they come on line, are reviewed by both cities as far as expenditures are concerned. Commissioner Vasquez assumed that the TSIP study which was done was separate from another study done by Continential Cities, which in- cluded a study of signalization, etc. and never came to pass. Mr. Dennis explained that the TSIP study was brought about by an agreement between the City of Orange and the City of Santa Ana and resulted in certain changes to the Continental project. The TSIP study has not been adopted by the City of Orange in its entirety as yet. The portion of the study that had to do with Continental Cities i s i ncorporated i n the TSIP study , Mr. Faust explained that there are some recommended changes in the Master Plan. There is a process to go through with the County. They have been fully apprised and know what is happening and he was sure their agreement will be forthcoming at the proper time, Chairman Hart at this time asked for input from the public. Verdon Craig, 641 E. Lomita, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that the reason that Glassell has not been explained here is that when the SOS Committee looked at the project it was their feeling that if Walnut and Cambridge were removed from the arterial system that Glasse]1 would save itself, due to the Old Towne project. It is the understanding of their committee that one of their streets of concern being Cambridge, in order for it to be changed to a commuter street it is imperative that Tustin have parking removed and be changed to a major arterial. Their committee would like to support that proposal. However, they would insist upon the change of Cambridge to a commuter street and would support the removal of parking on Tustin. Their purpose in having Cambridge removed is so that it would never be changed. Should that change come up again, they would strongly support that it be taken off of the arterial system. She asked questions with regard to pages 15-16 of the study referring to the Taft-Serrano project which the report indicates is before the County. She would assume that Villa Park is willing to say that they will forego funds from the County gas taxes and just want these streets removed from the arterial highway system. Mr. Dennis explained that at the present time Villa Park is requesting deletion of Taft from the arterial system. The City of Orange Staff does not support such a deletion. They feel that with the extension of Loma-and the construction of Serrano, plus the growth in their new area, that the area would best be served by a continuous street system as suggested in the Master Plan. They do not feel it is fair to the residents along Katella, Loma and other streets in that area Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 1983 Page Eleven to take this section of the roadway out. Commissioner Coontz wondered when the decision is going to be made and at what level and if this is still in the study stage. Mr. Johnson explained that he did not believe that there is anything official at this time. So far, the Staff has been opposed to the deletion of Taft, but the Council has made no official statement. The EIR will be made available to the City of Orange and at that point they will take action. Mrs. Craig said that if they decide that they wish this street to be removed, regardless of what the City or County wants, would they lose the gas tax funds? Mr. Dennis replied that Villa Park would jeopardize their arterial highway funding. Mr. Johnson stated that Villa Park has already taken the street off of their Master Plan. However, there will be no official decision until after the EIR review. If the EIR comes back negatively, the City of Villa Park will have two choices: they will either have to put the road back on the Master Plan, in conformance with the County's master plan, or they will forego any allocation of funds from the County. Mrs. Craig then addressed page 2 of the report - pointing out that the report states that minor traffic engineering improvements would enable Walnut to remain a two-lane street. Again, on page 15, there would be a reassurance that arterial widening would be a long time away. Yet on pages 16 and 17, she became very alarmed where it says Wando Road/Prospect Street that the original plan was to connect Walnut with that East Orange area with a bridge across Santiago Creek. It is then stated that Wanda/Prospect is also another corridor and they can use one bridge and make one big corridor with a bridge which would go across Santiago Creek. This bridge would accommodate ap- proximately 28,000 additional cars, This was of real concern to her as she saw it with the expected growth expected to take place in the eastern part of Orange as a big problem if Taft were deleted and traffic were to be moving over toward Chapman. She could see this happening much faster than is suggested in the report. She said that even though their committee does acknowledge that there is a problem in that area, they strongly object to using Walnut because this will throw all that traffic into residential areas where schools are involved. This is not acceptable to the residents of Orange. ~ Commissioner Coontz asked to speak to the remarks made by Mrs. Craig in reference to Wanda Road and the eastern area of Orange. Mrs. Coontz explained that Wanda Road relieves the Tustin Street traffic and she was not sure that the widening of the east corridor would affect Walnut Street. Mr. Faust explained that the Walnut extension has been brought up many times. There is a difficult connection on the east side of the freeway that would facilitate using Collins and Walnut on the east side of the freeway as arterials. Commissioner Coontz did not think that the bridge over the creek would the amount of traffic that Mrs. Craig is concerned about. Mr. Faust said that 7% of the residents use the Orangewood interchange and this would be a fairly small flow of traffic, Mrs. Coontz did not think that the widening of any part of Walnut will have a great impact all along the street, as Mrs. Craig seems to think. Mrs. Craig then explained her concerns in this regard. There was discussion between Mrs. Craig and Mr. Faust with regard to whether or not a bridge should be built across Santiago Creek to connect Walnut with Collins. He felt that the bridge traffic would go to Chapman or Katella rather than using Walnut. Mrs. Craig stated that the SOS Committee opposes the recommended use of Walnut as set out in this study and its pro posed .widening. Commissioner Coontz asked if the study will trace the traffic on Walnut and see where it comes from and where it goes, as she felt that this is important. Commissioner Hart pointed out that unless barricades would be placed on Taft, it is not likely that the use is going to diminish there. Planning Commission Minutes Aprri 1 4, 1983 Page Twelve Commissioner Coontz asked how large the Save Our Streets Committee and Mrs. Craig responded that there are 300-400 concerned citizens who call the Committee regularly. The SOS Committee is an organized body, with off icers . Ken Carpenter, 874 N. Cambridge, Orange, addressed the Commission, asking how long this study will go on before final decisions are made. He wondered where we go from here before something final is presented which everyone can agree on. Chairman Hart explained that the City Counci 1 had i nstructed the Commission to hold public hearings in order to take recommendations back to them. He felt that probably within two months there would be something more firm to go on. This is an information night and there will be no recommendations tonight. He assumed that this would probably be on the next agenda for action. It will go to the City Council and they will then receive instructions from the Council . ~ Mr. Carpenter thought it was interesting to note that there was a very low percentage of surveys returned from Cambridge residents, but many of these people had come in and addressed the Commission personally. Commissioner Mickelson felt that the Commission could make a motion tonight to recommend this back to the City Council. Mr. Dennis said that the Commission could take whatever action they deemed necessary at this time. They would hope to make a presentation to the City Council within three weeks. He felt it would be appropriate for the Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council requesting a public hearing. [ ~i Commissioner Mickelson saw nothing wrong with making a recommendation to the City Council as outlined in the Staff memorandum, after their review of this report, since he felt that there should be no more de]ay in this matter. He pointed out that the Council is not com- pelled to accept their recommendation. Moved by Commissioner Mickelson, seconded by Commissioner Coontz to recommend to the City Council that they, after reviewing the report,. direct the Planning Commission to schedule public hearings to consider amending the Master Plan of Arterial Highways in those areas recommended in the JEF Engineering Report. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Coontz commended Staff on the maps which were presented. although. she pointed out that she could not read the numbers in the maps in the report. The tables. were clear and had been helpful. Chairman Hart suggest4d that perhaps a reduction of the large maps used in tonight's presentation could be given to the Commissioners. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m., to be reconvened to a regular meeting on Monday, April 18, 1983 at 7:30 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange. California. ~~